View Full Version : QF & AN Replaceable not Remarkable

whipping boy
4th Dec 2002, 05:25
Over the years I've heard from different camps how their group are the most experienced and safest pilots on earth and that their airline could not possibly operate without them.

Well twice now this has been proven wrong.In 1989 our profession sought to try it out and were completely replaced in six months.More recently a great aussie airline was wipped out and in 12 months time will be completely replaced by another.

Those at QF & ex AN who think the aussie aviation scene cannot survive without them,think again.

For months and years after 89 we heard about how unsafe the aussie skys were and the imminent death of australain aviation.
The industry survived with this apparent experience drain and those who were the brunt of these remarks now chose to attack the experience levels in the current aussie scene. De ja vu.

For those who chose to question everything from experience levels to taxi speeds just remember that your 8000hours of map folding and "sorry skipper less teeth more gums" don't account for anything compared to the 1000hours in command of a 737 that these apparently dangerous inexperienced pilots now have.

And when your turn comes to compete on the world scene guess who is more employable.I've flown with both the experienced and inexperienced and I'm sorry to report that,there ain't no difference!

Reverend Doctor Doug
4th Dec 2002, 07:12
Whipping Boy
If you think that there is no difference between experienced and inexperienced then I'm afraid you are going to be one of the people that get talked about on this forum! Not to mention the narrow mindedness of assuming that 1000 hrs in command of a dinky toy (737) flying in one of the most benign aviation environments on earth constitutes "experience". I suspect i will be reading about you in the Crash Comics.

Buster Hyman
4th Dec 2002, 10:50
Hmm, whilst not a pilot, I assume that, as with anything, experience counts when the faeces makes contact with the oscilating device!

I take your point though that we are all replaceable. I miss my airline, but I'm sure, in a few years, everyone at DJ will have a similar affection for their airline. As to the bitchiness amongst the flying group, not my realm, I'll leave that to others.

4th Dec 2002, 14:07
Whipping boy, just after the 89 "dispute" there were two very very near things in TAA (or Australian ) B737's.

1. 2 missed approaches at Cairns, losing visual with the runway on final and going around...only to orbit out over the sea for 10-15 minutes and then complete a perfectly normal approach.


Had the approach plates out for Coolangatta.

2. not very long after that..about a week if my dim memory serves, a B737 on approach to Mackay completely missed the runway (at night) and was given the "you are not lined up go around!!" call from the tower controller. By the time power was applied the jet was about tree top level aprox a mile off the centreline.


Never did hear the reason for that one.

I'm sure that someone out there has the full and complete dossier on these two.

Sorry old thing, I'd rather have some old crusty up the front that has been there and done that.

As for the rest of the post.. you are correct, no-one is irreplacelable.

4th Dec 2002, 16:27
Whipping Boy... good name. I like it.

My 100s of hours of map-folding are nothing compared to the 1000s I've logged snoring in the rack down the back.

Why walk when you can drive, why stand when you can sit, why be in the cockpit when you can be in the bunk?

My minimal contrinution to the safety of the a/c is dwarfed by the wealf (for those of you from Penriff) of experience of the fat man in the LH seat. On most flights I prefer to dispense safety advice to the lubblies in the galley. I normally organise to brief them personally in the bar and later on up in my office.

Experience Come on we all know it's a ck of shiite. We all sit there bored senseless, twiddling thumbs, trying to ignore the boss while the other guys are hiding in the crew rest "twiddling the control on their remote control helicopters." I can hardly be @rsed logging it. In fact, I can't be at all... I'm about 3 years behind as it is. I can't believe some pud-knockers argue about the value of it all.

Take-offs and landings are what counts and I've watched plenty from my seat behind god so I must be pretty good.

But who really cares? Most of the capts I know on 737s achieved half their command time flying VH-BIC in GA even before the pilots strike. Come on, we've all done it, ri-iiiight??? Course we have!

4th Dec 2002, 19:29
Reverened Doctor Doug, I left , no I was thrown out of, Australia in 1989. I have flown with a European flag carrier since 1992. I am currently a 737-800 check and training captain. The aircraft has the capabilities and exceeds the pax carrying capabilities of the early 707s. "Dinky Toy" I think not:(

4th Dec 2002, 19:53

I regret to have to advise, in the interests of truth, that the Mackay incident occurred pre-dispute. Just goes to show that some '89ers could get it wrong, too.

For what it's worth, the particular driver was suspended at the time that the war began.

4th Dec 2002, 21:24
Whipping Boy

I assume it is you with your 1000 hours command on 737.

Just remember, you are employable on "paper" only.

The high paying airlines abroad, which I assume you would aspire to if tragically "dumped" on the market like so many recently, have quite stringent selection procedures. Failure rate is high, greater than %50 in some cases, even if you have their type endorsement and the much valued "widebody" time.

Remember, you are on the world market, not insulated in your own company where to be the ace of base may require less technical knowledge and a lower simulator standard.

Don't over estimate yourself and under estimate what foreign airlines may demand. Attitude important too, be careful.

I would not dismiss air safety, yes we are expendable, but the government/airlines did take risks in the dispute. Couple of close calls, evidently Fast Eddy almost lost a 737 on a bad weather circuit!

whipping boy
5th Dec 2002, 00:04
To the kind reverend(who would like to see me in a crash comic)I agree that experience does count for something,however I have flown with plenty of experienced pilots who are just there for the ride.Unless there is a basic understanding and some level of skills all the experience on earth won't help you.

I would much rather sit behind or beside or down the back with a competent inexperienced pilot than one who has all the experience on earth and still does not know what he is doing.

As to the dinky toy I'll bet you have a big nav bag as well.At the risk of more ridicule I suggest that apart from inertia flying a 152 or a 747 should all be done by numbers.I have always thought that the size of your aircraft is inversely proportional to your middle appendage.(I fly a microlight)

5th Dec 2002, 01:00
Dear Reverend Doc Doug,

You must be one of those legends of the sky who spend countless nights away from home, romancing with Mrs Palmer on those barmy tropical nights, and paying three lots of maintenance(the said Mrs P. inj her idle moments extracts said wallet from pocket, to allow her offsider to extract the money to handover) to X partners who where either

a. golddiggers who did not really like you as much as the lifesyle you offered

b. got wind of the misdemeaners whilst absent on duty :or

c. found out at behind that fascard of a professional aviator you were dull colourless and boring as you don't have any interests or personality out of working hours.

Be judged not by the size of your endorsement but by the quality of your children and family life.:rolleyes:

Reverend Doctor Doug
5th Dec 2002, 02:53
Sorry to offend.
I was a little quick off the mark with the "Dinky toy" remark. Having said that, i would suggest flying a 737 in Oz isnot the most challenging job on earth. Flying one in europe, a totally different matter.
I am not QF or ex ansett, but i found whipping boys comments a bit out of order. Just because the guys at Qantas have to fold maps for years before getting a command doesn't mean that they are not competent. Some of the best aviators i have worked with (flying much more demanding missions than Bne-Mel) are now in QF, happy as the proverbial pig in S**t to be sitting in the back, all care and no responsibility, earning good money and going to work when they please. Having said that, some of the most ordinary aviators are also there doing the same thing. As far as I have seen, being selected for any particular airline is absolutely no reflection on how capable you are.
Just remember a 1000 hours command on 737's also pales into insignifigance next to 10,000 hrs command of a 747 flying all over the world.

5th Dec 2002, 05:50
EXPERIENCE does not equal SAFE, only IMPLYS the ability to be SAFER
All the crash comics prove that with 20,000 hr captains flying perfectly flyable a/c into a crash site.
What is the sum of your experience? Flying from A to B. Do that for 20 years of "normal" flying and what is your "experience" actually giving you? Even if you have had a real engine fire in the past and got through it, what makes you think you will get through it the next time with a different co-pilot, at night, in IMC, different airport, 30 seconds more burning time, etc.? Your first experience does not equal safe the next time. I've had to "belly land" a light twin. Will that experience give me a safe outcome if I had to "belly land" my current a/c type? No. I will recognise only some parts of the first time experience.
Experience is good for giving you the potential ability to recognise that what is happening to you (S.A.) is not something that you have ever seen before in your experience or recognise as being potentially dangerous from learning from other people's stories and thus it should be avoided or controlled. When you feel uncomfortable about the situation, whatever your experience level is, then you ARE in trouble. "SAFE" means free from danger or the threat of danger. That's a 100% concept. No 99%, no compromise.

5th Dec 2002, 06:57
Whipping Boy,

There were also two TN B737 "Near Things" not long BEFORE the dispute. Remember the approach to the Freeway? And the one that "Went Missing" during a DME arrival (I believe a "Hard" GPWS warning was involved.)

There were aces and lemons on both sides of the divide, as I`m sure there are in the current Aussie operations.

The graveyard is full of irreplaceable men!

Kaptin M
5th Dec 2002, 07:05
I've flown with both the experienced and inexperienced and I'm sorry to report that,there ain't no difference!

And these stupid airlines are insisting on experienced pilots.
D!ckheads don't know what they're on about.

In fact, whipping boy, your post IS indicative of the "new age" management (read "human resources departments") views in a lot of companies in an effort to cut costs (so as to justify THEIR salaries and positions). Why employ "experienced" pilots, when we can get young guys who will gladly take less money while they build their hours.
From my experience, as a result of employing the lesser experienced guys - or rapidly promoting the new F/O's to the lhs - I have noticed that SOPS have had to be "dumbed down", because instead of having just ONE experienced pilot in the cockpit (usually the F/O), there are now TWO.
Overall result - longer aircraft operating times. And in most cases, 1 hour of an airline transport aircraft is the equivalent of one month of a pilot's salary.

Why fight them? After all we ARE only glorified 'bus drivers, and it's not up to ME to prove them wrong! :cool:

"Experience" and the benefits it CAN bring to an operation is something understood only by other pilots - just as one diamond looks the same as another to me.....I know nothing about inclusions, fluorecence, clarity, etc.....but I know that for some reason, some are worth more/less than others!

On another tangent, a pilot's experience in one field. ie. with 1,000 hours (on a 737 wasn't it) is worth ******-all if your ass is strapped to a float-plane or helicopter - and if it's ALL as an Oz domestic operator, a QF S/O with "8,000 hours of map folding" is going to be a far more valuable asset in the cockpit in Europe than the 1,000 hour man is.

BTW you mentioned one of my favourite topics - 1989 - and said, For months and years after 89 we heard about how unsafe the aussie skys were and the imminent death of australain aviation

So please tell me where I can now go to purchase a ticket with any ONE of the FOUR airlines involved in the 1989 event?

Hugh Jarse
5th Dec 2002, 07:24
When you feel uncomfortable about the situation, whatever your experience level is, then you ARE in trouble.

Really? I've been in 1 or 2 situations in my career (like many of the regulars on this board). Not one of them have left me feeling "comfortable" at the time (until it was time to write the report). At no time did I ever feel in trouble. And every event has had a safe conclusion. That was because of sound training and EXPERIENCE.

One could also say that comfort equals complacency.

More experienced people generally have a better understanding of the dynamics of situations (S.A.) That is applicable across all industries, not just aviation. Would you send someone straight from the Goulburn police academy into the SPG to deal with a hostage situation? No. Would you put someone who has just finished basic training in charge of a platoon of rural firefighters? No.

Reality check, foks.

And you all forgot to include human factors, regardless of experience.

5th Dec 2002, 14:48

I stand corrected...I told you the memory was not up to it!!

Alpha Charlie Bravo
8th Dec 2002, 02:40
I don't know why I continue reading this tripe. In fact, this very thread has persuaded me to stop doing just that!

The senior hags in the back of the bus who've been flying shark patrol and trans-continentals since the dawn of time have got nothing on you morons when the fur starts flying!

Juveniles!:D :D :D

12th Dec 2002, 10:19
Hugh Jarse,
Your use of the word "generally" is in agreement it seems to me and I agree with what you had to say about who you would choose to do the tough jobs. However, total time in job does not "generally" automatically equal better, all the time. It should but doesn't. Especially when the sh*t hits the fan as the person would not have much "experience" of that particular sh*t. (Every police hostage siuation and every bush fire is it's own unique event.) It seems your benign flying career has kept you pretty much in the middle of the safety system "S.H.E.L.L." model if you have never felt "uncomfortable" or "troubled" or "worried" or whatever word you would like to use. May the gods keep smiling on your aviation career.

dirty deeds
15th Dec 2002, 02:38
You all seem to forget one thing.

It all depends where you are sitting when the music stops!
Aircraft are built to be flown, you don't have to be a Rocket scientist to fly one. Get over the ego guys its just a job, as Bob Hawke said " We are just glorified bus drivers ".